I made it a point to see Epoka’s latest programme which was on L-Interdett, that shameful chapter of our history which happened in the ‘60s, and I am glad I did. It was well researched and very well presented by Jacqui Mercieca. The four participants were a former prime minister and president Dr Edward Fenech Adami, Dun Ang Seychell, Prof. Godfrey Pirotta and Dr Toni Abela. It was indeed a scoop for Jacqui to persuade Dr Fenech Adami to come on a programme such as this on One TV. I believe it is also the first time that Dr Fenech Adami has spoken on this painful subject.
Jackie, who is now a mother and reading History at the University, felt passionate about this particularly revolting episode of Malta’s history. It was an ugly, unfair and black chapter. It was a time of violence: physical, emotional, intellectual, psychological and spiritual. But while Black Monday is periodically unearthed from the archives and thrown at people’s faces, this much more shameful episode in which the Catholic Church but particularly Archbishop Gonzi were so intricately involved, is never mentioned.
The Church in Malta and the Nationalists continue to work hand in hand, for the mutual benefit of both, however, there aren’t as many gullible and illiterate people as there were in the ‘60s and the Church has lost most of its temporal power.
I would like to write mostly about what Prof. Pirotta said. Lack of space means I cannot comment on all the debate which was lively and enjoyable. Dun Ang is a good man and lives to help others, as we all know. Even in those difficult times he obeyed the directives of the Church. As a priest there was no other way.
Professor Godfrey Pirotta, who is the author of so many books and articles was extremely well prepared for the debate. He commented that records show that the Church in Malta even in the decades after World War II, still believed that its mission placed it above the state and that it should have the last word on any issue that political parties wished to take up. It also expected political parties to submit to its point of view even when these felt that the position of the Church hindered their desire to advance the welfare of people at the lowest rung of Maltese society. And goodness knows, there was enough poverty and inequality in those days. Thus, Prof. Pirotta said, as early as 1947, the signs that the MLP would eventually clash with the Church were clearly discernible. Among other things the Church had, directly or indirectly, opposed the introduction of income tax, education and a health insurance scheme. I found these remarks by Prof. Pirotta to be almost devastating. How can an institution such as the Catholic church oppose education and a free health scheme and fairer taxation? But it did and all this is well documented.
Prof. Pirotta explained that this opposition struck at the very heart of the MLP’s rationale for existence. Until then the burden of taxation fell directly on the working class and the introduction of income tax was not only intended to right this glaring injustice but to make possible the introduction of compulsory education for all children. (We tend to forget that it was the Labour Party which introduced these essential services.) But, as Prof. Pirotta explained, the Church believed that it could dictate how far a government, elected by universal suffrage could go.
Quite naturally, for those on the MLP side the stand adopted by the Church smacked of collaboration with the political forces that had consistently resisted the introduction of such social programmes. Prof. Pirotta said that it should not have come as a surprise in the 1960s that the Church would oppose measures which sought to extend social rights to minorities and to break the monopoly until then enjoyed by the Church on these social rights. It was all a question of power. The MLP’s determination to drag Malta into the 20th century could not but attract sanctions from a Church that was determined to maintain the status quo, Prof. Pirotta reminded us.
It is quite extraordinary that there are still people today who, despite well-documented evidence to the contrary want us to believe that the PN, in and out of government, played no role in the drama that unfolded in the 1960s and that the conflict concerned only the Church and the MLP. Prof. Pirotta, a solid academic (as opposed to some ‘academics’ which are that only in name) came armed with documentary evidence, a number of documents which were highlighted in green and to which he referred. He continued to give his audience the facts and did not attempt to re-write history as so often happens: It is a fact that the PN formally adopted the directives issued to voters by the Church before the 1962 elections, he said. He suggested to his audience that they could consult Il-Poplu, the PN’s own newspaper at the time, to verify these facts. “It is also a fact that the PN formally participated in mass activities organized by the Church as part of its campaign against the MLP. Borg Olivier was constantly in contact with Archbishop Gonzi and other Church leaders. He also addressed a Church rally not only to boost his party’s chances at the elections which were about to take place but also to steal a march on the other parties under the Gunta’s umbrella.”
Dr Toni Abela whose knowledge of history is impressive, commented that Dr George Borg Olivier was not a particularly religious man, neither was he a spiritual man but he did not hesitate to use the Church for his own ends.
Many will recall and Prof. Pirotta reminded us that in government the PN continued to support the Church’s campaign against the MLP by allowing the Church to exercise political control over burials at the Addolorata Cemetery, which is after all a state-owned facility. It tried to deny Maltese citizens employed with the Health Department and state hospitals the right to take into their place of work the MLP’s newspaper Il-Helsien. Education authorities also allowed teachers and priests employed in state schools to search student’s satchels and confiscate this newspaper.
I recall also that there was the threat of Mortal sin which the church dished out if you did this and that. I have to say that throughout the programme one thought kept on coming back to me: I hope there is a hell for these people!
But the worst case of collaboration between the PN government and the church came in the form of constitutional provisions which sought to place the Church entirely above the Constitution, said Prof. Pirotta. That this was a deliberate decision can be gleaned from what the PN leaders stated in Parliament during the debate on the Independence Constitution, he explained. For example Borg Olivier clearly stated that the alternative to the Constitution presented by his government was one which did not have the approval of the ecclesiastical authorities. Giovanni Felice, at the time PN Deputy Prime Minister, actually went further. He said that the Constitution had been drafted by a government that placed itself under the authority of the Church. His party, he said, could never reach agreement with the MLP as it opposed the religious clauses which gave the church supremacy over human rights provisions. These and other statements make it clear that the action of the PN had been a deliberate one and contrary to what Dr Fenech Adami stated, the result of thinking at the time. In fact Dr Felice stated categorically that the state in Malta was not a liberal state.
An interview with Lino Spiteri, who was at his best – and not sitting on the fence as he sometimes does – gave us his very own first hand experience of those dark, disturbing and painful days. He recalled, among many other episodes, how as soon as a Labour candidate was about to start his speech in some town or village, the church bells would suddenly ring and did not stop until the candidate stopped speaking since no one was able to hear him. (I thought: it is the sort of behaviour one reads about in Don Camillo and Clochemerle).
In Jackie’s words: “Labourites - though perceived as devils were still Maltese - their rights should have been protected by the British the flag bearers of liberty and by the Nationalist party from whom we hear so much about Democracy and Liberty. Did democracy and liberty and rationalism take a vacation in those grey days in the 1960’s? This whole business of L-Interdett should have been condemned and stopped, instead it was actively used and abused. What hurts today is that there are people who feel absolutely no repulsion about these happenings because party politics blind them. What’s happened to compassion, empathy and humanity.”
Someone commented that what Mintoff had the courage to do was to separate church and state and to end the medieval privileges the Church enjoyed. It was democracy versus privilege. This threatened the Church and so they waged war - not only against Mintoff but also on those who agreed with him. The clergy threatened, manipulated, and terrorised the local population with spiritual warfare. I would like to comment that worst of all both the Nationalists and the Church used the ignorance and naiveté of most of the population at the time, for their own ends. It was tyranny but it was well disguised tyranny. Archibishop Gonzi was a sharp one and forget about our souls, he simply loved power and was determined that the Church was not going to lose it.
An excellent programme which should be shown at History classes – if they still exist – and in every school.
